Re: [bcn_2003] Re recent material (Mark Newbrook)

--- In, Polat Kaya <tntr@C...> wrote:

Dear friends,

This is in response to Mark Newbrook's input dated 24 July 2003.

Mark Newbrook said:

"It is almost certainly impossible in principle for Polat Kaya to
satisfy the criteria I have previously outlined."

Polat Kaya: Mark Newbrook keeps referring to an imaginary criteria
that he thinks he gave. So far, contrary to his claims, he has
outlined absolutely nothing. His expressions are vague, confused and
surely no guidance at all. All this time he has been adding verbosity
and big talk while trying to call it "definition". For the benefit of
all, I will summarize what happened. Mark Newbrook offered to look at
a set of 30 to 50 English words that are not known as being from
Turkish if I would provide them. I provided 125 such words and after
that, Mark Newbrook has been playing the dodge game. He has avoided
touching any one of them.

He keeps referring to something vague like "historical linguistics".
I really do not care much about his so-called "linguistic history".
His "historical linguistics" has painted an incorrect picture of
languages. This incorrect picture has sent modern linguists on a wild
goose chase.

To show what I mean I will introduce two new English words that I have
not discussed before. What I will show about them will not be found
in "historical linguistics". If Mark Newbrook is in linguistics for
the sake of science, then he should carefully read on.

The good book dictionary says about the word "ENCRYPT" as follows:

ENCRYPT. Put a message into code; to put (computer data) into a coded
form; to distort (a television or other signal) so that it cannot be
understood without the appropriate decryption equipment. --ENCRYPTED
adjective, ENCRYPTION noun. [from Greek "KRYPTEIN" hide.]

First of all I want to show that the English "ENCRYPT" is actually an
anagram of the so-called Greek word "KRYPTEIN" to hide. This becomes
obvious when "EN" of "ENCRYPT" is moved to the end of the word. Then
we have: "CRYPTEN" versus Greek "KRYPTEIN". As a linguist, Mark
Newbrook should be able to recognize this, that is, if he would care
to examine these words. When the dictionary says that the
word "encrypt" is from greek "kryptein" they do not indicate how it
was done. Now I will complete the missing information in the
dictionary etymology of English encrypt: ENCRYPT, from Greek KRYPTEIN
by way of taking the EIN suffix and simply moving it to the front and
dropping I. Also the Greek K is replaced with C yet it is pronounced
as K. This way, not only has the Greek word been changed in format
but also the visual connection has been disrupted because ENCRYPT
does not look similar to KRYPTEIN. In other words, English ENCRYPT
is an anagram of Greek KRYPTEIN. The "anagrammatizer" who
manufactured "encrypt" from the Greek word can then say with impunity
that "it is from Greek "kryptein" meaning "to hide". But they will
not say that they anagrammatized the Greek word - even though that is
what they did.

I can see these changes with an engineer's eye, but Mark Newbrook,
as a linguist, either does not see it or does not want to see it.
Additionally, readers will see that these changes have nothing to do
with his "historical linguistics". The writers of the "historical
linguistics" probably did not even know what actually happened in
forming words let alone talk about it. Even if they knew what had
taken place, they probably would not talk about it because that would
reveal the true nature of the so-called Indo-European languages.

Perhaps Mark Newbrook can see this. But what he may not see or does
not want to question is the Greek word "KRYPTEIN". The "Greek" word
itself is an anagram of Turkish phrase "KIRIP ETIN" (kirip edin,
kirin, seklini degistirin, taninmaz hale getirin) all meaning "make it
broken", " make it disfigured", "make it unrecognizable", etc. When
something is broken, its original state is "encrypted" in its present
state. Drop a vase on the ground and break it, then you will know
what I mean. The broken vase can still be put together in order to
see what it looked like. Encryption does not lose the original

Thus it is crystal clear that the Greeks did anagrammatize this word
"KRYPTEIN" from Turkish "KIRIP ETIN". As all can see. I have no
"nationalistic" bias in my analysis. It is a simple analysis where I
can see and demonstrate how the word was made and others cannot. No
linguist, including Mark Newbrook, has any idea about how Greek words
were made or how "encrypt" was made. Additionally no historical
linguist will explain things in this clear manner. Instead they have
sent everybody on a wild goose chase - either innocently or
intentionally. Thus it can be seen that linguistics has a huge problem
on their hands. Nobody seems to know what has taken place - except
those that were involved in the anagrammatization. To sum up, the
original Turkish "kirip edin" was first anagrammatized into Greek and
then reanagrammatized into English thus making it that much harder
to decrypt.

The English word "ENCRYPTED" represents the past tense of "encrypt" by
the addition of the so-called past tense suffix "-ED". But the "-ED"
is itself an anagram of Turkish past tense suffix "-DI". As simple as
that. There is no nationalism on my part playing a role in this

Additionally, there is the noun form of the word, that is,
"ENCRYPTION". Now I say, the "TION" at the end of the word is a
concoction. It is not really a suffix although it appears to be one.
The word "ENCRYPTION" is an anagram of Turkish phrase "KIRIP ETIN ONU"
meaning "let someone make it broken". In this case, the Turkish
phrase has been rearranged into "ENCRYPTION" and the final "U" has
been dropped. Mark Newbrook may have difficulty in seeing this
because a) he probably does not know Turkish and its culture and
b) even if he did, he would not recognize it because he is
preconditioned by the books that he has read, by the historical
linguistics that he has learned and by the writings of other people
who may have been equally influenced and conditioned by their own

Now I will show you another example, the English word "ATONE" having
the synonyms of: "beg pardon", "ask forgiveness", "offer an apology",
"express regret", "make apology for", etc.. Yet ATONE is an anagram
of Turkish UTAN meaning "be ashamed", "be regretful", "apologise".
Another form of ATONE is ATONEMENT which is an anagram of Turkish
"UTANMA ETIN" meaning "be ashamed of yourself", "express regret",
"say that you are sorry", "make reconciliation", etc.. Linguists are
not in a position to deny this.

As every linguist can see (or ought to see), there is no ambiguity in
my analysis and nothing is being hidden, and there is no nationality
concern involved. Claiming that my nationality concerns are playing a
role in my analyses is total nonsense. I can say with certainty that
no linguist was aware of this revelation including Mark Newbrook.
Historical linguistics will not know about these revelations either.
Therefore they are not in a position to say anything on the subject as
I am saying. I will also add that no matter how much probability,
simple or complex, one applies to these words, they will not arrive at
any of the information I am giving. My explanations cannot be
explained by coincidences or probability.

After having said all this in front of everyone here, Mark Newbrook
has to think many times before he can make his allegations against me.
In a way I am glad that I did not read the books he has been reading.
Otherwise, I would not be able to discuss these revelations with you.
The wrong or misguidance of historical linguistics can indeed be very
misleading. I hope Mark Newbrook will change his totally unclear
and imaginary rules and give up his very self limiting views.

I do not want to go through his allegations, denials, and/or baseless
inferences one by one. Again I have made my point very clear indeed.

I also hope that Mark Hubey is following all this very carefully
without being bogged down with his "probabilities".

As far as comparing my work with those of others, this is not my
problem as Mark Newbrook indicates. I say let everyone defend his/her
own work freely without being pushed around by the so-called

Those who do not know or understand what I am talking about should at
least stay neutral rather than making all kinds of allegations and

2. Mark Newbrook said:

"Supporting evidence for this can readily be found in the work of
other such writers, who by proceeding in similar ways (some involving
anagrammatisation and some not) arrive at completely different
analyses (often motivated by their own nationalistic and other
biases). These analyses are, in general, no more but no less
persuasive than Polat Kaya's. Some of them, at any rate, do not
involve anagrammatisation and are thus more readily assessed. Polat
Kaya's refusal to compare his work with theirs is a serious mistake.

For these reasons, theories such as Polat Kaya's cannot be accepted
unless they are (a) plausible and (b) supported by strong, hard
historical or textual evidence. Neither of these applies in this
case. The enterprise involved is altogether infeasible on the scale
proposed and no remotely similar case is known. Even minor reforms
such as spelling changes are often resisted effectively. And there is
no historical or textual evidence of these events having occurred.
Even if Polat Kaya should be right (and that is very unlikely indeed),
we could not demonstrate this without such evidence (because the
linguistic evidence itself cannot support him, for the reasons given

Polat Kaya: As everyone can see, all this verbosity by Mark Newbrook
is nothing but a vehement denial. That is all it is. I can see how
difficult it would be for linguists to accept what I am saying but if
science is a search for the truth, no matter how bitter it may be,
my claims must at least be taken into serious consideration. It
should not be forgotten how everyone resisted the ideas of Galileo
Galilei at first.

As a linguist Mark Newbrook has a problem in his hand which he does
not want to tackle. Mark Newbrook still owes me scholarly comments on
my 125 words - one by one. There is no escaping from it.

3. Mark Newbrook said:

"On sources: Wallis Budge is an important historical figure in
Egyptology but his material is now dated. As noted earlier, some of
Polat Kaya's sources are dubious (eg Sitchin). And one certainly
cannot assume that the stories in Genesis are factually true or even
based on facts."

Polat Kaya: I disagree wholeheartedly. Sir E. A. Wallis Budge was an
eminent Egyptologist and what he has done in his books are still valid
and shining contrary to what others may say. His work goes a long way
in showing the Turkicness of the ancient Egyptian language. It seems
that others want to cloud his work now by referring to it as "dated".
Yet they would gladly refer to or quote a much older work when it
suits them.

4. Mark Newbrook said:

"There is still no reason at all to accept Polat Kaya's ideas, and
this will not change unless he can do some things (as outlined by me)
which he has shown no signs of being willing or able to do."

Polat Kaya: Once again, I want to state that Mark Newbrook has
outlined nothing for me. It looks more like Mark Newbrook is
desperately hoping that readers will reject my ideas as he is trying
to do. Mark Newbrook draws the wrong conclusion and then tries
to inject that wrong conclusion on the other readers. Why doesn't
he just let everyone judge and speak for themselves? Wouldn't that
be the scholarly thing to do?

Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

July 27, 2003